Flying by Air- the carbon footprint

[Guest]

Just want to clarify something you said, the 2007 report is not even out yet. What is out, and being widely circulated is the summary report. This is the report that all the scientists are screaming about- saying that it is blatantly political and is very selective in the data it publishes.

I guess the bottom line is this, some people are worried and some are not. I guess if we all die in ten years I'll be unprepared.

[Guest]

(grunyen @ Feb. 19 2007,03:20)  Just want to clarify something you said, the 2007 report is not even out yet. What is out, and being widely circulated is the summary report. This is the report that all the scientists are screaming about- saying that it is blatantly political and is very selective in the data it publishes.

I was looking to buy a book because I feel somewhat skeptical myself about the hype and this one looked interesting, although I have not read it (and, I should say, I have no financial interest in the book):

Unstoppable Global Warming
by Dennis T. Avery and S. Fred Singer

Some excerpts from some of the online Amazon reviews that caught my eye:

"The core (pardon the pun) fact that puts the lie to most of the political global warming propaganda is that found by the examination of CO2 in ice cores.
It turns out that, far from being the root cause of atmospheric warming, elevated levels of CO2 FOLLOWS WARMING, DOES NOT PRECEDE IT."

"Authors make the case:
1. Global warming is real.
2. Global warming is mild, not severe, as the "climate alarmists" claim. The major points for the "Man-made Warming activists" are based on Computer modeling results and surface temperature measurements. The temperature measurement problem is challenged in chapter 9 and 11, and alternative long-term temperature theories are presented in Chapter 9, from proxies such as ice cores, tree rings, seabed sediment deposits, et al. The Computer Modeling problem is challenged in Chapter 11.
3. Global warming is slow, not rapid, as the "climate alarmists" claim. Trend is up by 0.125 degrees C per decade. (Pg. 11)
4. Global warming is not primarily caused by CO2. (Both the "Roman Warming" of 200BC - 600AD and the "Medieval Warming" of 900AD - 1300AD were warmer than the current "Modern Warming" of 1850AD to present. Since "about 80% of the carbon dioxide from human activities entered the air after 1940". Therefore, those earlier warming periods were NOT caused by burning fossil fuels and thus not related to increased CO2 levels. The Greenhouse Theory of man-induced high CO2 levels as the cause of the Modern Warming is thereby shown to be most unlikely.
5. Global warming periods (and global cooling periods) are primarily caused by energy out-put changes from the local star. (The major problem with this theory is that humans know incredibly little about the long-term variations in solar properties.) One scientist "reported that the sun's radiation has increased by nearly 0.05 percent per decade since the late 1970's." He has "used data from three different NASA ACRIM satellites monitoring the sun to assemble a twenty-five year record of total solar radiation from 1978 to 2003. The trend is significant because the total energy output is so huge. A variation of 0.05 percent in its output is equal to all human energy use." (pg. 192)
6. The solar heat radiance fluctuations are extremely small, 0.1% over 20 years, but this small variance is amplified by earths' atmosphere. This amplification process is "by at least two factors: (1) cosmic rays creating more or fewer of the low, cooling clouds in the earth's atmosphere; and (2) solar-driven ozone changes in the stratosphere creating more or less heating of the lower atmosphere." Pg. 192.
7. The solar heat fluctuations are cyclic, and are corresponding to a 1470 year climate cycle. This cycle is apparently related to the known sun-spot cycles of 87 and 210 years respectively.
8. The 1470 year climate cycle is verified by historical evidence, and by scientific evidence such as ice cores, tree rings, seabed sediment deposits, et al.

The positive aspects of this book are:
1. Many scientists and scientific organizations and their works are quoted and referenced. The Chapter Endnotes total 524.
2. The history is interesting.
3. The authors are scientists not journalists, per se.
4. The writing is clear, and the main points are easy to grasp.
5. There are no cheap-shots or name-calling toward persons or groups that are in the so-called "climate alarmists" camp. There are only a few minor rhetorical swipes that, in my view, are warranted.

The negative aspects are:
1. Too much ground to cover. (Although I could say this was a positive, since its sometimes limited explanations allowed good readability.)
2. Too little direct evidence of the solar-influence-on-climate theory, but that evidence may not be available until after hundreds or thousands of years of sun-study.

Overall: Highly recommended."

"Another of UGW's strengths is recognizing that: "Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas even during the current [minor] warming [since about 1980].""

"The paper from the IPCC released on FEB 2nd is not the full report - just the curiously edited "Summary for Policy Makers." The detailed report on the science won't be issued until May or so because it's not finished. If you're wondering, "How the UN can issue a summary of a report that's not even finished?!", fear not. Believe it or not, the UN has announced that changes to the full report shall be made "to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policy Makers." ! The UN process - akin to shooting first and asking questions later - is the exact opposite of the traditional scientific method. To me it confirms that this is more a political document than a scientific one..."

[Guest]

(grunyen @ Feb. 19 2007,03:20)  Just want to clarify something you said, the 2007 report is not even out yet. What is out, and being widely circulated is the summary report. This is the report that all the scientists are screaming about- saying that it is blatantly political and is very selective in the data it publishes.

This is interesting...

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p37.htm

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm

From the website:

"Global Warming Petition

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

"Listed below are 17,200 of the initial signers

During the past 2 years, more than 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed the Global Warming Petition.
Signers of this petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists (select this link for a listing of these individuals) who are especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth's atmosphere and climate.

Signers of this petition also include 5,017 scientists whose fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences (select this link for a listing of these individuals) make them especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide upon the Earth's plant and animal life.

Nearly all of the initial 17,100 scientist signers have technical training suitable for the evaluation of the relevant research data, and many are trained in related fields. In addition to these 17,100, approximately 2,400 individuals have signed the petition who are trained in fields other than science or whose field of specialization was not specified on their returned petition.

Of the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified. One name that was sent in by enviro pranksters, Geri Halliwell, PhD, has been eliminated. Several names, such as Perry Mason and Robert Byrd are still on the list even though enviro press reports have ridiculed their identity with the names of famous personalities. They are actual signers. Perry Mason, for example, is a PhD Chemist."

[Road Runner]

Hello Ivana,

Welcome to the forum    -  talk about arriving in style  

It's good to have some decent counter arguments.  The book you cite in the first post sounds interesting  -  I'll look out for a copy.

Liked the comment about  

curiously edited "Summary for Policy Makers."

Maybe the scientists realised that the policy makers will be too lazy to read the full report and will probably have lost interest by the time it arrives.

The trouble with anything produced by the UN is that it will always be about politics and the real aim will get submerged along the way.

RR.

[Guest]

(Road Runner @ Feb. 19 2007,04:18) Hello Ivana,

Welcome to the forum  

Thank you. Here is a great read:

"Aliens Cause Global Warming"

[Road Runner]

(ivana @ Feb. 18 2007,21:11) "Aliens Cause Global Warming"

Hello Ivana,

I'm sorry..... with that link you have just wiped out 99.9% of your brownie points

RR.

[Guest]

Catholic Archbishop of Sydney Ridicules "Religious Enthusiasm" of "Global Warming Doomsayers"

----------------------------------------
Scaremongers

By + Cardinal George Pell
Archbishop of Sydney
18 February 2007

Global warming doomsdayers were out and about in a big way recently, but the rain came in Central Queensland and then here in Sydney. January also was unusually cool.

We have been subjected to a lot of nonsense about climate disasters as some zealots have been painting extreme scenarios to frighten us. They claim ocean levels are about to rise spectacularly, that there could be the occasional tsunami as high as an eight story building, the Amazon basin could be destroyed as the ice cap in the Arctic and in Greenland melts.

An overseas magazine called for Nuremberg-style trials for global warming skeptics while a U.S.A. television correspondent compared skeptics to €œholocaust deniers€.

A local newspaper editorial€™s complaint about the doomsdayers€™ religious enthusiasm is unfair to mainstream Christianity. Christians don€™t go against reason although we sometimes go beyond it in faith to embrace probabilities. What we were seeing from the doomsdayers was an induced dose of mild hysteria, semi-religious if you like, but dangerously close to superstition.

I am deeply skeptical about man-made catastrophic global warming, but still open to further evidence. I would be surprised if industrial pollution, and carbon emissions, had no ill effect at all. But enough is enough.

A few fixed points might provide some light. We know that enormous climate changes have occurred in world history, e.g. the Ice Ages and Noah€™s flood, where human causation could only be negligible. Neither should it be too surprising to learn that the media during the last 100 years has alternated between promoting fears of a coming Ice Age and fear of global warming!

Terrible droughts are not infrequent in Australian history, sometimes lasting seven or eight years, as with the Federation Drought and in the 1930s. One drought lasted fourteen years.

We all know that a cool January does not mean much in the long run, but neither does evidence from a few years only. Scaremongers have used temperature fluctuations in limited periods and places to misrepresent longer patterns.

The evidence on warming is mixed, often exaggerated, but often reassuring. Global warming has been increasing constantly since 1975 at the rate of less than one fifth of a degree centigrade per decade. The concentration of carbon dioxide increased surface temperatures more in winter than in summer and especially in mid and high latitudes over land, while there was a global cooling of the stratosphere.

The East Anglia university climate research unit found that global temperatures did not increase between 1998 €“ 2005 and a recent NASA satellite found that the Southern Hemisphere has not warmed in the past 25 years. Is mild global warming a Northern phenomenon?

While we might have been alarmed by the sighting of an iceberg off Dunedin as large as an aircraft carrier we should be consoled by the news that the Antarctic is getting colder and the ice is growing there.

The science is more complicated than the propaganda!

[PigDogg]

It's interesting to speculate on the political/economic agenda of those on both sides of the issue.

Seems the Christian right does not like global warming theories. Perhaps only god who can raise the sea level ala Noah or perhaps an alliance with the business wing of the GOP or maybe a little of both.

[Tomcat]

(ivana @ Feb. 19 2007,04:01) - is the exact opposite of the traditional scientific method. To me it confirms that this is more a political document than a scientific one..."

The summary report is issued for peer review, thats how it works, like a courtroom. We woudlnt be debating this otherwise. The full report will also be available for criticism.

The matter will become Political, thats how society works, we elect politicians to run the show.
problems dont solve themselves.

[Guest]

(PigDogg @ Feb. 19 2007,15:01) It's interesting to speculate on the political/economic agenda of those on both sides of the issue.

Seems the Christian right does not like global warming theories.  Perhaps only god who can raise the sea level ala Noah or perhaps an alliance with the business wing of the GOP or maybe a little of both.

Some of these religious fanatics can at least recognize religion when they see it.

As far as the Christian right and environwackoism goes, these Anglicans in many cases are very much on the left and environmentalist, including the future head of the Anglican Church (Prince Charles) and the current archbishop of Canterbury (Rowan Williams). "Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, spiritual leader of the world€™s 77 million Anglicans, drives an eco-friendly car, bangs the green drum and argues..."

Some people are susceptible to the magical thinking of religion and some are not.

[Guest]

(Tomcat @ Feb. 19 2007,17:13) The matter will become Political,

"...will become political" ?!??!??!?

The matter has been political, and bordering on religious. As this speaker pointed out, the science has been lacking:

"Aliens Cause Global Warming"

[Guest]

(ivana @ Feb. 19 2007,14:48) Catholic Archbishop of Sydney Ridicules "Religious Enthusiasm" of "Global Warming Doomsayers"

----------------------------------------

It seems that when Georgie speaks ex theologus, as it were, he makes a lot more sense.

[Tomcat]

(ivana @ Feb. 19 2007,23:23) Aliens Cause Global Warming

Oh dear

Soon have Xfilers , Moon landing deniers and other Loonies crawling in.

I think someone should put there name to a new Topic

" Conspiracy theories"
" Whats your favourite"

please, someone....

[Guest]

Did you read it ?

[Guest]

(lemarquis @ Feb. 20 2007,00:36) Did you read it ?

I would submit that it is apparent that he did not read it.